On the logic of psychoanalytic theory

Psychoanalytic theory shows some specific features and problems. It exists in a number of variations, according to different schools as well as cultural and subcultural conditions, with different understandings even of core concepts. Instead of producing definite knowledge, results remain uncertain. They vary in use and imply a permanent reworking of ideas and conceptions. This is the effect of the kind of theory psychoanalysis has to use. Since psychodynamics are a special kind of heterogeneous, changing, always different, emergent-in a word, autopoietic-reality, psychoanalysis cannot use the methods of a denotative theory (algorithmic reduction leading to strictly defined and formulated calculations) but has to use connotative theories. Connotative theories use open concepts which provide an active and flexible access to autopoietic reality. They are able to cope with the difference between singularities as well as with the distance between general logic and empirical reality. Problems tied to this possibility are structural fuzziness, a dependence on forms of use, multiple paradigms and difficulties in legitimation and balance of theories. This causes problems of institutionalisation. These problems are not a sign of immaturity but the normal way in which connotative theories appear and develop. They can therefore not be eliminated but only be treated in a better way.     

On the psychoanalytic treatment of a psychotic breakdown

The author discusses the four-session-a-week psychoanalysis of a patient in psychotic breakdown with outbursts of violence. The analyst's first appearance in the transference was as a "rattle" (the noise made by his shifting in his chair), which constituted undeniable evidence of corporality--first the analyst's and then the patient's--leading eventually to the awareness of there being two separate persons in the psychoanalytic relationship. This case highlights the analyst's need to function in a particular way, and to allow him- or herself to be used in a particular way, in working with very disturbed patients, where issues of the body-mind relationship and of separation from the other are often central to the analytic work.     

Loewald's approach to psychoanalytic theory

The author suggests that part of the legacy of Hans Loewald is the nature of his approach to psychoanalytic theory. Loewald carefully considered and selectively utilized the work of theorists from a number of psychoanalytic schools of thought: id psychology, object relations theory, ego psychology, self psychology, and the interpersonal tradition. In addition, he helped pave the way for the current widespread interest in intersubjectivity, and also positioned himself in relation to those who embraced hermeneutics. Through all of this, he maintained a skeptical attitude, embodied in his belief in the complexity of the phenomena to be explored and his commitment to the perspective that psychoanalytic ideas should be open to revision.     

A thought on the nature of psychoanalytic theory

In this paper I suggest that much of recent experiment in analytic theory, even widely diverse approaches, has a common denominator the problem of the conceptual vacuum created by the shift away from a central creative position of the idea of psychic mechanisms. I try to illustrate, by comparing theories of Bion and George Klein, that this movement seems to point in the direction of considering now what is uniquely psychoanalytic about our theories. I content that what is unique about psychoanalytic theories is that they are involved in the experiential core-function of the applied science by becoming internalized and used symbolically to aid the analyst inwardly to endure persecutory anxiety and loss of the sense of objective reality, and so maintain the analytic position.